Michel Collon wrote:
>
> Please find here an important article about Macedonia, Kosovo, Nato
> and their future.
>
> 1. Is Macedonia a strategic area? 2. KLA attack: is it a surprise? 3.
> What is surviving of the official Nato version? 4. Is Washington
> playing double game? 5. Will KLA provoke a new war? 6. What do the US
> really want? 7. Will it be possible for Washington to keep playing
> with all sides? 8. Did they «forge a monster»? 9. What shall be the
> role of the rivalry between USA and EU? 10. Is Kostunica trapped? 11.
> Perspectives for Peace.
>
> -- Michel Collon
> michel.collon@... (For fair use only)
>
> After Kosovo, Macedonia.
> What is left of the explanations of NATO ?
>
> A sinister repetition? After the Albanian separatists of the KLA have
> attacked the villages
> of the Presevo valley in Serbia, after they have killed 11 Serbian
> civilians of Kosovo by throwing a bomb in a bus, they are waging now
> war
> in neighbouring Macedonia. And again refugees are on the roads. Is
> there a
> new escalation in the Balkans?
> In fact, these events allow to better understand what happened in
> 1999. In
> this complex situation (because everything is done to disorientate the
> public
> opinion), let us answer clearly to the main questions.
>
> Michel Collon
>
> 1. Is Macedonia a strategic region ?
>
> Yes, as we have explained in our book Monopoly by citing the general
> Jackson,
> commander of the NATO troops:
> "We will certainly stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the
> safety of the energy corridors which cross Macedonia". (1) 'Energy
> corridors' ? We had presented the maps showing the projects of Europe
> (a whole net of oil and gas pipe-lines connecting Europe via the
> Balkans
> to the huge oil and gas resources of the former soviet Caucasus) and
> the ones
> of the US (a pipe-line Bulgaria-Macedonia-Albania-Adriatic which would
> give
> to the US oil multinationals the control of this road of oil and gas).
> These
> projects are in fact rival. This is why all the great powers attempt
> for ten
> years to control Yugoslavia. The road of oil and gas passes by. We had
> also
> stressed that as soon as 1992 it is in Macedonia - however very far
> away
> from the conflicts zones - and nowhere else that Washington had
> decided to
> send a division.
> We have to be frank: even in the left circles, some peoples found
> exaggerated to suspect Washington to have so dark projects. But very
> recently,
> the respectable British newspaper Guardian confirmed: "A project
> called the Trans-Balkan pipeline has been little-reported in any
> British,
> European or American newspaper. The line
> will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore,
> passing through
> Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely become the main route to
> the west for the oil
> and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000
> barrels a day. The project is necessary, according to a paper
> published by the US Trade and Development Agency, because it will
> "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries",
> "provide
> American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west
> corridor",
> and "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the
> region"." (2)
> Clear, isn't it ? Moreover, Bill Richardson, the former US energy
> secretary, declared in 1998, that is before the war: "This is
> about America's energy security". When the US speak about 'energy
> security',
> one must know what it means: to preserve the world domination and the
> profits of their oil multinationals. And Richardson continues:
> "We would like these newly independent countries reliant on Western
> commercial and political interests rather than going another way.
> We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's
> very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come
> out right." (3)
> And The Guardian adds this essential comment: "On December 9, 98
> (before
> the war), the president of Albania attended a meeting on this subject
> in
> Sofia:"According to my personal opinion, no solution which will stay
> strictly
> inside of the Serbian borders will bring a sustainable peace." The
> message
> could hardly be clearer: if you want the agreement of the Albanians
> for
> the Trans-Balkans pipeline, you have to take the Kosovo away from the
> Serbs". (4)
>
> 2. Is the offensive of the KLA a surprise?
>
> The US made thus a pact with the devil. Because many US diplomatic
> reports testified it: the separatist KLA murdered not only Serbian
> policemen or civilians, but also Albanians married with Serbs or
> simply
> accepting to live in the Yugoslav state. And the special envoy of
> Washington in the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, had himself claimed three
> times
> in front of the international press, at the beginning of 1998: "I tell
> you
> that these KLA peoples are terrorists". But three months later, these
> terrorists were turned by miracle into 'freedom fighters' and NATO
> will soon
> become their air force.
> Today the US simulate surprise faced to the "extremist violence" (5)
> which
> attacks Macedonia. It is hypocrisy! As soon as June 98, the KLA
> distributed
> among its European sympathisers a map of 'Great Albania'. In our book
> Monopoly (p.69), we reproduced this map and made the following
> comment:
> "In addition to Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, this great Albania
> would
> remove large territories in Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece. Wars are
> unavoidable if the KLA is allowed to realize its plans".
> This Greater Albania implies not only expansionism but also ethnic
> cleansing.
> Today, under the eyes and with the tacit agreement of NATO, 350,000
> not-Albanians have already been expelled from Kosovo: Serbs but also
> Gypsies,
> Gorani, Turks etc.. Kosovo is almost 'clean'. A surprise? Not really,
> since, on July 12, 1982 already, the New York Times interviewed a
> Yugoslav official in Kosovo, a man of Albanian ancestry,
> who said: "'The [Albanian] nationalists have a two-point
> platform...first to
> establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and
> then the
> merger with Albania to form a greater Albania." Besides, during the
> anti-Yugoslav insurgency of 1981, the Albanian nationalists had
> already
> established a close collaboration between their units in Macedonia,
> Serbia
> and Montenegro.
> All this didn't prevent the influential US Senator Joseph Lieberman to
> declare in April 99: "[The] United States of America and the Kosovo
> Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles...
> Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American
> values."(6).
> In other words, the US and the KLA share the same fight. Besides,
> anybody who travels through Kosovo can see everywhere, for example in
> the petrol stations, the Albanian and US flags closely associated.
>
> 3. Does the version of NATO still make any sense ?
>
> What did NATO tell us to justify its murderous bombings? 1. That its
> war
> was humanitarian. Wrong: it was for oil and to break an economy which
> resisted to the Western multinationals and to the IMF. 2. That it had
> tried everything to find a negotiated solution. Also wrong: we now
> know that
> there was never any negotiation; Rambouillet was only a comedy to
> justify a
> war which had already been decided. 3. That it was a clean war. Wrong
> again:
> 2.000 Yugoslav civilians killed, a huge number of factories and
> infrastructures destroyed, the use of forbidden and criminal weapons:
> cluster bombs, depleted uranium.
> General Mangum just wote in the very official journal of the Army War
> College:
> " The high- altitude bombing did very little damage to the Serb
> military. It was only after NATO began deliberately attacking civilian
> targets that the Serbs sued for peace." (7)
>
> Now what was left of the official version also collapses. We were
> told:
> `The problems of Kosovo are caused by Milosevic'. The situation is not
> better with Kostunica and a government which is subjected to the West
> ! By the way, the Time confess: "Remember Kosovo? According to Clinton
> administration spin during the 1999
> bombing campaign, NATO was rallying to the defense of helpless ethnic
> Albanians and their brave champions in the Kosovo Liberation Army who
> were fighting a
> David-vs.-Goliath struggle against Belgrade's genocidal army. Well,
> guess
> what? Not only has NATO now declared armed Albanian nationalists of
> the KLA stripe to
> be the primary security problem in the region, the Western alliance is
> also
> considering asking the selfsame Yugoslav army to help NATO troops
> police the border
> between Kosovo and the neighboring former Yugoslavian republic of
> Macedonia.
> Once Yugoslavia had elected a president with whom the West could do
> business, prospects for winning NATO support for formal independence
> for Kosovo dimmed even further." (8)
> So, you may say white today, and black tomorrow if this useful for
> "business". Who will dare to come and speak to us about a humanitarian
> war, newt time?
>
> We were told that the intervention was necessary to stop a Serbian
> genocide
> and to establish a multi-ethnic Kosovo. But the German general Heinz
> Loquai
> has demonstrated that the so-called 'horse-shoe plan' document
> presented
> by the German minister Scharping was fake, that the genocide was a lie
> of the
> media and he just qualified the war as 'unjustified', and accused NATO
> to
> have caused two humanitarian catastrophes: a massive exodus of the
> Albanians
> and then another exodus of the Serbs. And the general Michael Rose,
> who
> commanded the UN forces in Bosnia, reproaches NATO "to have introduced
> a
> culture of violence". (9)
> Finally, in order to find some excuse for the current ethnic cleansing
> in
> Kosovo, the supporters of NATO and KLA have pretended that it was
> 'revenge acts
> for what the Serbs had done'. And now, in Macedonia, where nothing
> happened,
> under which pretext should one justify the aggression of the KLA? It
> is
> time to acknowledge the only possible explanation: the KLA aims to
> establish
> an ethnically clean state and can only realise this program by the
> escalation of hatred and by terrorism.
>
> 4. Does Washington play a double game?
>
> The United States make as if they were indignant at the current
> violences
> of the KLA. But we must point out several things: 1. They didn't move
> a
> finger when the KLA went out from Kosovo to attack the region of
> Presevo
> in Central Serbia. Worse: the infiltration occurred from the US
> occupation
> zone in Kosovo. 2. Washington and the NATO pretend today "to try to
> stop the
> flux of weapons and fighters towards southern Serbia and
> Macedonia".(10)
> But anybody who goes to Kosovo can observe roadblocks and
> check-points of
> the KFOR every five kilometers. But the same KFOR is working with
> interprets
> and other collaborators coming from the KLA, which besides was
> transformed
> by KFOR into the very official 'Kosovo Protection Corps'. So, the ones
> who
> don't look for the weapons of the KLA will not find them.
> Moreover, the major Jim Marshall, spokesman of the US KFOR, declared
> on
> March, 6: "We have identified between 75 and 150 rebels in Tanusevci
> (Macedonia), we saw them enter and go out from Kosovo, and get rid of
> their equipments and weapons before to cross the border." A little
> stupid
> question: what did prevent you to arrest them? 45,000 NATO soldiers
> are
> occupying Kosovo and can not arrest 150 terrorists ? Can not or
> don't want to? On March, 11, in the British newspaper Observer,
> several
> European high officers of KFOR and also several Macedonian officials
> accused
> explicitly the CIA to have encouraged the KLA to start its summer
> offensive
> in the South of Serbia in order to undermine the former Yugoslav
> president
> Slobodan Milosevic. Today, who could guarantee that these
> encouragements
> have stopped?
>
> 5. Will the KLA start a new war ?
>
> What will happen ? The current fights around Tanusevce could well be
> the prelude of more important clashes. For example, to take control of
> Tetovo, five kilometers away from the Kosovo border.
> In any case, one thing is clear: the KLA, which lost the elections
> last
> year, -because the large majority of the Albanians in Kosovo don't
> want to
> live in a permanent state of war - can only regain ground by using
> violence.
> Including in Macedonia where it pretends to defend the rights of the
> Albanian minority, but one often forgets to remind that, for years,
> every
> government of this country has been made of a coalition with Albanian
> parties.
> To take power, and thus increase the range of its maffia - like
> traffics,
> necessitates war.
> The tactics of the KLA is thus clear: to cause an escalation by
> provoking the Macedonian and the Yugoslavian armies. Hoping that the
> later
> will attack Albanian civilians as was done by some Serbian forces
> during
> the first days of the NATO bombings. That will allow to reach two
> goals: 1. To internationalise the conflict (we will come back to it
> later).
> 2. To enrol new recruits in an Albanian youth which has been fanatised
> by
> nationalism. In spite of the development of many little traffics more
> or
> less legal, the Albanian community of Macedonia has an unemployment
> rate of
> 60%; it is a potential where to recruit.
> To get this escalation, the KLA will probably use again a method which
> has already been put in practice. As a French observer of the OSCE
> explained it in Kosovo in 1998: "Inside the OSCE, everybody knew that
> NATO, in particular the US, didn't want our mission (of pacification)
> to
> succeed. The massacres have been encouraged to justify a military
> intervention. One day we got a message. We were told that Albanian
> fighters had been trained by American instructors. They were explained
> that it was more strategic to kill Serbian policemen to provoke
> important
> retaliations against the Albanian community." (11)
> As in Bosnia and in Kosovo there can be some time before that this
> tactics ends up in more important clashes. An important step would be
> done by provoking the equivalent of the 'Racak massacre'. In January
> 99,
> in this village of Kosovo that it had fortified, the KLA had provoked,
> and lost, a fight between the two armies. But it made believe that the
> victims were civilians coldly massacred by the Yugoslav army. With the
> help
> of the CIA, one made believe this media-lie in the international media
> and
> this allow to condition the Western public opinion to make it accept a
> war
> decided for a long time by the US. Each war of today is preceded by
> such
> a big media-lie, with shocking pictures.
>
> 6. What are the US really looking for?
>
> But to do again the 'Racak trick' would necessitate a complicity of
> the
> US to lead the Western media. If this would happen, that would
> certainly be
> the sign that the US superpower would be preparing a new intervention.
> One can oppose two objections to this hypothesis: First the US are
> qualifying today the KLA as 'extremist forces' and condemn their
> actions, at
> least in words. Answer: at the beginning of 98 also, they qualified
> the
> KLA as 'terrorists', as we have seen, but that didn't prevent them to
> support unconditionally the KLA a few months later. If there is one
> principle to remember
> in the action of the US for ten years, it is that there are no
> principles!
> One can also ask why would the US intervene although they seem to
> control
> the region and have installed there their military bases ? Of course
> one
> doesn't know yet all the aspects of their current tactics. It may be
> that
> behind the scene they push the KLA to create again some tension in
> order to
> help the US troops to occupy the whole region. As soon as the first
> incidents in the Presevo valley occurred, Washington had generously
> proposed to station US troops in Serbia proper. One must also remind
> that during the so-called
> 'negotiations' in Rambouillet before the war, Madeleine Albright had
> required that NATO will be allowed to occupy militarily the whole
> Yugoslavia.
> It may also be that new Bush administration has not yet decided which
> is
> the best tactic to protect the US interests in the Balkans, that it
> prefers
> to play for some time with both sides and that the tactic of the KLA
> was
> precisely to force it to take a decision or to act quicker.
> In both cases, one thing is sure: the US are not there to defend peace
> or
> protect any people of the Balkans. They are there to reign. And to
> reign
> you have to divide, as we know, and to divide the best solution is a
> war, or
> at least a so-called 'low intensity' war, a situation of 'neither war
> nor
> peace' with irregular clashes. Isn't it the best way to justify the
> installation of US military bases in the Balkans ?
> Of course, the candidate George Bush had said that he wanted to move
> the
> US troops out of Kosovo. But the president George Bush rapidly forgot
> these
> electoral promises. Lets remind that in 1995 the candidate Bill
> Clinton
> had promised that the US troops would have left Bosnia by Christmas.
> Immediately afterwards, the commander of the UN troops in Bosnia, the
> general MacKenzie, answered to a parliamentary commission: "If I were
> you,
> I'd start training your grandchildren as Bosnia peacekeepers." (12)
> Wether it wants to force Bush to intervene or acts in collaboration
> with him,
> the goal of the KLA is in any case to internationalise again the
> conflict,
> as did the Muslims of Izetbegovic in Bosnia from 1992 and the KLA
> itself in
> Kosovo in 1998.
> By attacking almost at the same time Macedonia and the South of
> Serbia,
> by denouncing in racist terms any Slav presence on their territories,
> the leaders of the KLA aim at provoking a reaction of Macedonia and
> Yugoslavia, but also of Greece, close to the Serbs. And, as an
> indirect
> result, a retaliation of their own allies: Albania and Turkey. That is
> an
> internationalisation of the conflict which would force Washington to
> choose
> between its allies and, as the KLA hopes, to definitely choose the
> Albanian side.
>
> 7. Will Washington still be able to play on both sides?
>
> To understand the situation of the US, it is important to understand
> that
> they systematically play on several sides at the same time. To support
> and
> to manipulate discretely two adversaries - and even train them
> militarily -
> does not embarrass them at all. For example, we can read in the
> British Daily
> Telegraph of March 3: "The private company of security which is the
> most
> appreciated by the US government has trained both sides of the last
> ethnic
> conflict in the Balkans. Only two years ago the Albanian rebels of
> Kosovo
> were trained by the society 'Military Professional Resources' based in
> Virginia... One of the recent task of this society was the training of
> the
> Macedonian army which is now shooting on the Albanian guerrilla."
> One should not underestimate the role in the US military system of the
> private companies and militia, led by former high officers. Already in
> Bosnia, they had trained and led the Muslim militia of the president
> Izetbegovic before that the US could openly intervene. And in Croatia
> they
> helped the president Tudjman to realise the bloody ethnic cleansing of
> the Serbian Krajina in august 95 (13). History repeats itself.
> Having played in several sides, the US can be for a moment in a
> difficult
> situation. From one side, they continue to use the KLA to get more
> concessions from Serbia: the complete privatisation and the
> elimination of
> the main opposition party, the SPS (by sending its president Milosevic
> to the Court of the Hague). But on the other hand, if they let the KLA
> going too far, they will have troubles with precious allies: 1. The
> Macedonian government 2. Greece (also threatened by the demands of the
> KLA) 3. The Yugoslav president Kostunica.
> The Macedonian government has not much autonomy and one says that
> Washington could impose it what it wants, including a federal state,
> prelude to a splitting. Moreover, the Macedonian leaders are very
> weakened by various scandals, which have revealed their links
> with the US. The left opposition claims to be more independent, but
> its
> main candidate was put aside by terror during the last elections.
> Macedonia,
> a too weak and unstable ally for Washington ?
> On the other hand, the Greek leaders are important pawns in the NATO
> strategy of Washington. But the Greek people is strongly against NATO,
> the
> influence of the communist party is important and very recently one
> third
> of the Greek soldiers have required and obtained to be moved out from
> Kosovo to escape the dangers of depleted uranium.
> Finally by playing too openly with the card of the KLA, the US would
> strongly endangered the president Kostunica, who was elected with an
> ambiguous profile - anti-NATO and pro-West - and who can not present
> to
> his opinion any positive result about Kosovo, to the contrary.
> To allow him to make come again some Yugoslav troops to watch the
> border is maybe a small concession to give some more credit to
> Kostunica and to somehow balance the two 'friends' of the US. But the
> reason can also be simply to avoid that US soldiers would be in first
> line
> and risk to come back to the US in body-bags, which is always
> embarrassing
> for the US opinion. And, in a more machiavellian way, that would start
> again clashes between Serbs and Albanians.
> What if Washington drops the KLA and reverses its alliance? Then it
> could be that its German 'ally' -but also rival- supports again
> secretly
> the KLA as it did at the beginning 98 (14). Which also explains that
> the
> KLA has interest to make even more provocations. The rivalry between
> Western great powers is thus another factor which increases the risks
> of
> war. Many European politicians had already accused the US to be guilty
> of
> having uselessly prolonged the war in Bosnia in order to eliminate
> their
> German competitor which had got a too good position. (15)
> Reverse the alliance? One has already seen everything in this respect
> from
> the US, for example between Iran, Iraq and Syria. But their goal is to
> establish in the Balkans a 'plane-carrier' state, like Israel in the
> Middle-East. For this, an obvious choice is still an Albanian state
> which
> would owe everything to Washington. However, the European powers
> refuse
> a change of the borders in the Balkans. This would cause new wars and
> destabilise the projects of 'corridors' described above.
> One thing is sure: the intervention of NATO for some hidden interests
> didn't
> bring and will not bring peace.
>
> 8. Do they really ask themselves if they have created a monster?
>
> It is again in The Guardian that one could read, on March 12, a
> surprising question: 'Did we create a monster ?'. Their special
> correspondent
> in Pristina reports: "The West is stunned. Balkan nightmares were
> supposed
> to have ended with the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. But now
> Albanian nationalist militants are stirring ethnic rivalries in a
> quest
> for a greater Kosovo. The liberated victims have become the villains.
> In Washington and London, and in the offices of NATO and UN in
> Pristina, a
> question is dominating: did we create a monster ?" The correspondent
> of the
> Guardian led a quite vast investigation with the staff of UN and KFOR
> and
> concludes: "The failure of KFOR to disarm the KLA, protect the Serb
> minority and build a multi-ethnic society has created a climate in
> which extremists flourish. For almost a year it
> ignored intellectuals who urged a crackdown on KLA members who seized
> assets and set up criminal networks. "Now it's too late, the moderates
> won the election, but those who smuggle and run the rackets have the
> real power," one officer serving there
> admits."
> Disastrous result, and one understands that the former governor of
> Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, had quickly left the ship before that his
> self-satisfied TV statements have been refuted.
> Because what The Guardian reports is true. I was myself in Kosovo last
> December to make there a documentary movie "The damned of Kosovo"
> (which will
> be ready next May). I discovered there a hell for the Serbs and all
> non - Albanian minorities. Most of them have been expelled from
> Kosovo:
> ethnic cleansing. The ones who have stayed live in terror. To speak
> its own
> language in public constitutes a mortal danger. Also to go on highways
> in non-Serbian zones. But the terror strikes also a number of
> Albanians.
> KLA maffiosi kill Albanians also. To take houses, companies or women.
> And
> many of the Albanian with who I was talking, predicted a civil war
> - between Albanians - in two or three years time.
> Quickly The Guardian mentions the theory of 'the mistake': The West
> would 'have misunderstood the danger of Albanian nationalism'. Of
> which
> 'West' are we talking here? If it is the public, it is indeed true
> that
> it didn't understand because one hided to it carefully the truth. When
> some analysts explained that the program of the KLA was the ethnic
> cleansing,
> they were almost excluded of the media or even considered as evils.
> But if one speaks about the leaders of this 'West' - the White House,
> Tony Blair, Solana and Robertson, the CIA - they knew of course for a
> long
> time because their own reports considered the KLA as 'terrorists'.
> In Kosovo, we have also seen that one has to distinguish between a
> number
> of honest Western aid workers and militaries, and their high-level
> officials.
> The former went to Kosovo with prejudices but also with good will. The
> later
> have been sent to Kosovo to hide this truth, to hide the secret goals
> of the
> US and their allies and to lie.
> It is certainly in the first category that one must put Eric Torch, a
> UN aid worker cited by The Guardian: "Albanians
> trace their lineage to the Illyrans who controlled the territory in
> the
> 11th century BC. Underground schools during Milosevic's rule
> inculcated ethnic
> hatred into generations."
> Yes, you have read correctly: 'during Milosevic's
> rule'. This confirms what have said some unconventional analysts:
> these
> parallel Albanian schools, organized by the party of Rugova and
> financed
> by the US taught racist anti-Serbian conceptions. It was wrong to say
> that
> the responsibility of the conflict was entirely on the side of the
> Serbs.
> Pushed by the US, the Albanian leaders of Kosovo refused to negotiate
> seriously, they wanted only independence and taught the hatred to
> achieve it.
>
> 9. Which role will play the rivalry US -EU?
>
> One can not understand the attitude of the US in these events without
> replacing it in the context of their world strategy. One of the
> key-men
> of the new Bush administration is called Wolfowitz. In our book
> Liar's Poker we made comments about his shock-report of March 92:
> "The status of unique super-power of the US must be preserved by a
> constructive behaviour and a sufficient military force to dissuade any
> nation or group of nations to challenge the supremacy of the US. We
> must
> act in order to prevent the appearance of a security system
> exclusively
> European which could destabilise NATO" (16).
> The US military budget began to blow up under Clinton and this will
> continue under Bush. Three potential rivals at more or less long term
> are
> today the potential targets of this dangerous strategy: the European
> Union,
> Russia, China. The embassy of the later was bombed as a warning. It is
> considered by the CIA as risking to overtake around 2015-2030 the
> power of
> the US. Concerning Russia, the new US State secretary, Colin Powell,
> declared
> that the objections of Moscow would not prevent the expansion of NATO
> to
> the East or the militarisation of space by the so-called
> 'anti-missiles
> shield' (NMD). His colleague Condoleezza Rice declared that she
> sincerely
> "believes that Russia is a threat for the West" (17). And the Defence
> secretary
> Rumsfeld attacked Russia for "its 'active proliferation of missiles'
> to
> countries like Iran, Korea or India". (18)
> Concerning Europe, Rumsfeld warned against any autonomous European
> intervention force which would perturb the transatlantic relation
> during
> the conference of Munich about global safety, beginning of February.
> Answer
> of the German minister Joskha Fisher: the new Bush administration
> wants to
> restart a new arms race. His colleague Scharping expressed sympathy
> for
> the Russian views about NMD. Germany has, like France, condemned the
> US bombings against Iraq.
> Moreover, the ambition of the US to dictate their will to the whole
> world
> is currently braked by several points of resistance that they don't
> succeed to eliminate. Iraq still resists, as well as the Palestinians.
> The US intervention in Colombia could transform itself into a new
> Vietnam.
> The communist guerrilla in Nepal worries the American experts. Some of
> them
> think that it is time to find a solution in the Balkans and to focus
> on other
> operations.
> All this on a background of growing commercial rivalries and crisis
> which
> could only worsen the tension USA-Europe. The game that these powers
> are
> playing in the Balkans for ten years, each of them trying to get the
> biggest part of the cake, this game will continue to cause damages to
> the
> peoples of the region. When the elephants fight each other, it is the
> grass
> which is smashed.
> And after all the gifts that the US have given to reward the terrorism
> of
> the KLA, one can expect that this example will be contagious for some
> fractions of the Albanian community in Macedonia and Montenegro or for
> other
> secessionist movements in the world. One will use provocations and
> terrorism to try to present oneself as 'victims'.
> The mistrust between US and Europe about Kosovo increased when the
> candidate Bush threatened to move out the US troops from the Balkans,
> letting
> the Europeans alone in what one is forced to call a mess. Since then,
> many European officials criticize -privately- the support of the US to
> the
> terrorists of KLA. An expert of the French Institute of International
> Relations (IFRI) has just declared: "The Dayton process is dead. The
> whole
> system needs to be renegotiated. But no-one wants to open the
> Pandora's
> box by calling it into question, risking poisoning the
> situation on the ground. If for example, the Kosovo Albanians were
> appeased
> with a state of their own, it would trigger a domino
> effect that would see Serbia's junior partner in the
> rump Yugoslavia, Montenegro, as well as Bosnian Serbs
> and Bosnian Croats all renewing their own independence claims.
> For some time it appeared the Americans were prepared
> to look at changing borders. I think that cannot
> happen now, and if they did try it they would be opposed by Europe."
> (19))
>
> What will be the outcome? In fact, Bush has four options: 1. to redraw
> his
> troops. That would have strongly embarrassed the Europeans. It is now
> not
> possible anymore, especially with the depleted uranium scandal. 2. to
> reverse
> the alliance and to support the Serbia of Kostunica. But the US troops
> could become the targets of the KLA. And one is not sure that Serbia
> will be a reliable partner for the long term. The spirit of popular
> resistance is still alive there. 3. to support both sides by using a
> strategy of tension. 4. to maintain the support to the KLA to create
> an
> Albanian 'Israel-like' state while hiding its game as long as
> possible.
> No one of the options is moral, we have seen that this criteria is
> never
> relevant. But to realize their strategic long-term goals, the US can
> well
> resort to changing and contradictory tactics.
> For now a combination of the options 3 and 4 seems the most likely to
> us. But
> maybe the US have not decided yet and they are waiting to see the most
> favourable according to the reactions of their 'friends' ?
> In any case, the tactics being changing, some docile media would have
> some
> trouble to explain to the peoples that the good guys are not good
> anymore and
> that the bad guys are on the other side. Let's hope that these
> troubles will
> cause a deep reflexion. If one doesn't understand the economic
> interests at
> stake, and first, the ones of the multinationals looking for new
> markets,
> working forces and raw materials, it is impossible to understand all
> these
> wars.
>
> 10. Is Kostunica in a trap ?
>
> The president Kostunica has been elected by defending an ambiguous
> position:
> on one hand, he denounces the war of NATO, the occupation of Kosovo
> and
> the interference of the US; on the other hand, he promises the
> reconciliation with this very same West and an economic improvement
> thanks
> to Western aid.
> Till now the least one can say is that he wasn't rewarded concerning
> Kosovo.
> On March 6, he declared: "The representatives of the international
> community
> in Kosovo are facing failure, because they did not provide stability
> and peace,
> and the crisis spilled over into Macedonia. Kfor is dealing with its
> own security,
> and not with the security of those because of whom it is here."(20)
> Kostunica also accused KFOR of "stimulating instead of curbing the
> aspirations of a Greater Albania. KFOR is abandoning protection of the
> border and is
> inviting our army to be in the crossfire" (21) He also expressed hope
> that
> the policy of the new U.S. administration would be marked by "a high
> level of
> non-interference in the problems of other states". (22)
> The paradox is that two days after having warned so clearly against
> NATO and the interference of the US , the same Kostunica added that
> "he did not rule out Yugoslavia becoming a formal alliance partner one
> day."(23) A NATO which is however the most obvious tool of the
> interference spirit of the US ! In the same declaration, the Yugoslav
> president declared himself disappointed: "When I came to office, I did
> not
> expect the situation in the country to be quite so difficult; it is
> discouraging," citing security and constitutional problems as well as
> 40
> percent unemployment and 800,000 refugees. Surprising declaration as
> the
> 800,000 refugees (expelled from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) are living
> in Serbia for years. Concerning the unemployed, did he lead his
> electoral
> campaign by ignoring that the Western embargo and the state of the
> economy had such consequences ? And by not reading the program of the
> economists of his own electoral coalition which foresaw privatisations
> and
> massive dismissals ?
>
> How to interpret these contradictory statements ? In fact, as
> expected,
> the material situation of the Serbian population has still worsened
> with the
> Djindjic government. If the salaries of the university professors have
> been
> doubled, the ones of the workers have only increased by 25% to 50%,
> and
> it is completely insufficient to face the huge increases of the
> prices.
> The cubic meter of gas has gone from three up to twelve dinars, the
> kilo of
> sausages from 150 up to 300 dinars, the electricity bill of a
> household
> has increased from 150 or 200 dinars a month to 500 dinars! The
> electricity
> company of Belgrade indicates that 130,000 households of the city have
> a very important debt: more than 30,000 dinars! And the price of
> petrol also
> increases, all the more that the new government took control of all
> the
> oil sector in order to eliminate the black market of petrol (cheaper).
> As expected, the honeymoon didn't last. If the president Kostunica is
> not
> considered as personally responsible for all this, the rate of
> discontent
> towards the new government of Zoran Djindjic on the other hand has
> already gone up to 60%: "He doesn't do anything for the people. Even
> during
> the war, we had always had electricity, but with the 'great
> democracy', the
> cuts last for four hours during the day, three hours at night" is it
> told
> everywhere. And many judge that elections are unavoidable in 12 or 18
> months
> time. The heterogeneous coalition of 18 parties should split quite
> soon.
> It is why one must dismiss Milosevic and eliminate the risk of a come
> back of the socialist party, even if this party has not yet gone up in
> the polls.
>
> Which evolution is to foresee inside Yugoslavia? The professors that
> are
> not from the universities are on a prolonged strike. Many strikes
> occur also in the industry, only broken by threats of collective
> dismissals.
> This didn't prevent the new left trade-union 'Solidarity' to get at
> the
> car factory Zastava an additional increase of salary of 25%. On the
> other
> hand, the minority trade-union of government tendency had refused to
> join the strike. 'Solidarity' has announced the publication of a
> monthly
> newspaper and the next months should see it increasing its influence.
> Did Kostunica fall in a trap of the West? Was he expecting to get more
> support in the question of Kosovo and for the economy? Till now he
> just
> got alms and the US make the other credits depend on the extradition
> of
> Milosevic. What Kostunica can not do otherwise he would contradict
> himself
> and commit a political suicide. Thus, the US finance a new campaign of
> OTPOR
> to criminalize Milosevic. The US, which, for fifty years, have
> supported,
> financed and armed all the far-right and military dictatorships in the
> world, these US which have protected the crimes of Pinochet, Mobutu,
> Franco, Salazar, the Greek colonels and the Turkish fascist generals,
> these
> US pretend to judge just one former head of state, precisely one who
> has
> resisted to them ? The US deserve the Oscar of hypocrisy.
>
> 11. Perspectives.
>
> In a world marked by a looming economic crisis, by an increase of the
> wars and a frightening increase of the military budgets, it is
> important to
> fully draw the lessons of Kosovo and of the current situation.
> 1. There are no 'humanitarian' wars, only economic and strategic wars.
> 2. The US and NATO are not searching to solve the problems but to
> dominate the world. Thus they create or excite the problems when it is
> useful
> for them 3. The military intervention against Yugoslavia and in favour
> of
> the KLA has worsened everything. 4. It is not 'by mistake' that
> Washington
> supported the KLA, but consciously.
> It is urgent to reinforce or to recreate a powerful peace movement on
> a
> grass-root level. The only way to get there is to work with patience
> in
> establishing the dialog between the peoples, who are all victims of
> this
> strategy of 'dividing to conquer'.
> And for this, to debate of the results of this war and of the real
> strategies of the great powers is the fundamental condition. The
> struggle for
> peace begins with a lucid analysis.
>
> 12th of March 2001
>
> Notes
>
> (1) Michel Collon, Monopoly - L'Otan à la Conquête du monde, EPO,
> march 2000,
> p. 96. (English edition prepared)
> (2) The Guardian, February 15, 2001.
> (3) Idem.
> (4) Idem.
> (5) AFP-Skopje, March 6, 2001.
> (6) Washington Post, April 28, 1999.
> (7) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001.
> (8) Time, 8 mars 2001
> (9) Both cited in Kan Anders-Vredeskoerier (Holland), march 2001.
> (10) Declaration of Robertson (NATO), AP, March 6.
> (11) L'Humanité, November 18, 1999
> (12) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001
> (13) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 191. (Soon published
> in English version)
> (14) See Monopoly, pp. 70-71.
> (15) The European mediator in Bosnia, David Owen, cited in Michel
> Collon,
> Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 182.
> (16) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, p. 116.
> (17) Le Figaro, February 10, 2001.
> (18) PBS, February 14, 2001.
> (19) AFP - Paris, March 8, 2001.
> (20) BBC, March 6.
> (21) Reuters - Skopje, March 8, 2001.
> (22) BBC, March 6.
> (23) Reuters - London, March 8, 2001
>
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti
dell'ex Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'",
oggi "Comitato Promotore dell'Assemblea Antimperialista":
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita':
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.domeus.it/ad1210280/www.domeus.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe
>
> Please find here an important article about Macedonia, Kosovo, Nato
> and their future.
>
> 1. Is Macedonia a strategic area? 2. KLA attack: is it a surprise? 3.
> What is surviving of the official Nato version? 4. Is Washington
> playing double game? 5. Will KLA provoke a new war? 6. What do the US
> really want? 7. Will it be possible for Washington to keep playing
> with all sides? 8. Did they «forge a monster»? 9. What shall be the
> role of the rivalry between USA and EU? 10. Is Kostunica trapped? 11.
> Perspectives for Peace.
>
> -- Michel Collon
> michel.collon@... (For fair use only)
>
> After Kosovo, Macedonia.
> What is left of the explanations of NATO ?
>
> A sinister repetition? After the Albanian separatists of the KLA have
> attacked the villages
> of the Presevo valley in Serbia, after they have killed 11 Serbian
> civilians of Kosovo by throwing a bomb in a bus, they are waging now
> war
> in neighbouring Macedonia. And again refugees are on the roads. Is
> there a
> new escalation in the Balkans?
> In fact, these events allow to better understand what happened in
> 1999. In
> this complex situation (because everything is done to disorientate the
> public
> opinion), let us answer clearly to the main questions.
>
> Michel Collon
>
> 1. Is Macedonia a strategic region ?
>
> Yes, as we have explained in our book Monopoly by citing the general
> Jackson,
> commander of the NATO troops:
> "We will certainly stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the
> safety of the energy corridors which cross Macedonia". (1) 'Energy
> corridors' ? We had presented the maps showing the projects of Europe
> (a whole net of oil and gas pipe-lines connecting Europe via the
> Balkans
> to the huge oil and gas resources of the former soviet Caucasus) and
> the ones
> of the US (a pipe-line Bulgaria-Macedonia-Albania-Adriatic which would
> give
> to the US oil multinationals the control of this road of oil and gas).
> These
> projects are in fact rival. This is why all the great powers attempt
> for ten
> years to control Yugoslavia. The road of oil and gas passes by. We had
> also
> stressed that as soon as 1992 it is in Macedonia - however very far
> away
> from the conflicts zones - and nowhere else that Washington had
> decided to
> send a division.
> We have to be frank: even in the left circles, some peoples found
> exaggerated to suspect Washington to have so dark projects. But very
> recently,
> the respectable British newspaper Guardian confirmed: "A project
> called the Trans-Balkan pipeline has been little-reported in any
> British,
> European or American newspaper. The line
> will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore,
> passing through
> Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely become the main route to
> the west for the oil
> and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000
> barrels a day. The project is necessary, according to a paper
> published by the US Trade and Development Agency, because it will
> "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries",
> "provide
> American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west
> corridor",
> and "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the
> region"." (2)
> Clear, isn't it ? Moreover, Bill Richardson, the former US energy
> secretary, declared in 1998, that is before the war: "This is
> about America's energy security". When the US speak about 'energy
> security',
> one must know what it means: to preserve the world domination and the
> profits of their oil multinationals. And Richardson continues:
> "We would like these newly independent countries reliant on Western
> commercial and political interests rather than going another way.
> We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's
> very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come
> out right." (3)
> And The Guardian adds this essential comment: "On December 9, 98
> (before
> the war), the president of Albania attended a meeting on this subject
> in
> Sofia:"According to my personal opinion, no solution which will stay
> strictly
> inside of the Serbian borders will bring a sustainable peace." The
> message
> could hardly be clearer: if you want the agreement of the Albanians
> for
> the Trans-Balkans pipeline, you have to take the Kosovo away from the
> Serbs". (4)
>
> 2. Is the offensive of the KLA a surprise?
>
> The US made thus a pact with the devil. Because many US diplomatic
> reports testified it: the separatist KLA murdered not only Serbian
> policemen or civilians, but also Albanians married with Serbs or
> simply
> accepting to live in the Yugoslav state. And the special envoy of
> Washington in the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, had himself claimed three
> times
> in front of the international press, at the beginning of 1998: "I tell
> you
> that these KLA peoples are terrorists". But three months later, these
> terrorists were turned by miracle into 'freedom fighters' and NATO
> will soon
> become their air force.
> Today the US simulate surprise faced to the "extremist violence" (5)
> which
> attacks Macedonia. It is hypocrisy! As soon as June 98, the KLA
> distributed
> among its European sympathisers a map of 'Great Albania'. In our book
> Monopoly (p.69), we reproduced this map and made the following
> comment:
> "In addition to Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, this great Albania
> would
> remove large territories in Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece. Wars are
> unavoidable if the KLA is allowed to realize its plans".
> This Greater Albania implies not only expansionism but also ethnic
> cleansing.
> Today, under the eyes and with the tacit agreement of NATO, 350,000
> not-Albanians have already been expelled from Kosovo: Serbs but also
> Gypsies,
> Gorani, Turks etc.. Kosovo is almost 'clean'. A surprise? Not really,
> since, on July 12, 1982 already, the New York Times interviewed a
> Yugoslav official in Kosovo, a man of Albanian ancestry,
> who said: "'The [Albanian] nationalists have a two-point
> platform...first to
> establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and
> then the
> merger with Albania to form a greater Albania." Besides, during the
> anti-Yugoslav insurgency of 1981, the Albanian nationalists had
> already
> established a close collaboration between their units in Macedonia,
> Serbia
> and Montenegro.
> All this didn't prevent the influential US Senator Joseph Lieberman to
> declare in April 99: "[The] United States of America and the Kosovo
> Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles...
> Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American
> values."(6).
> In other words, the US and the KLA share the same fight. Besides,
> anybody who travels through Kosovo can see everywhere, for example in
> the petrol stations, the Albanian and US flags closely associated.
>
> 3. Does the version of NATO still make any sense ?
>
> What did NATO tell us to justify its murderous bombings? 1. That its
> war
> was humanitarian. Wrong: it was for oil and to break an economy which
> resisted to the Western multinationals and to the IMF. 2. That it had
> tried everything to find a negotiated solution. Also wrong: we now
> know that
> there was never any negotiation; Rambouillet was only a comedy to
> justify a
> war which had already been decided. 3. That it was a clean war. Wrong
> again:
> 2.000 Yugoslav civilians killed, a huge number of factories and
> infrastructures destroyed, the use of forbidden and criminal weapons:
> cluster bombs, depleted uranium.
> General Mangum just wote in the very official journal of the Army War
> College:
> " The high- altitude bombing did very little damage to the Serb
> military. It was only after NATO began deliberately attacking civilian
> targets that the Serbs sued for peace." (7)
>
> Now what was left of the official version also collapses. We were
> told:
> `The problems of Kosovo are caused by Milosevic'. The situation is not
> better with Kostunica and a government which is subjected to the West
> ! By the way, the Time confess: "Remember Kosovo? According to Clinton
> administration spin during the 1999
> bombing campaign, NATO was rallying to the defense of helpless ethnic
> Albanians and their brave champions in the Kosovo Liberation Army who
> were fighting a
> David-vs.-Goliath struggle against Belgrade's genocidal army. Well,
> guess
> what? Not only has NATO now declared armed Albanian nationalists of
> the KLA stripe to
> be the primary security problem in the region, the Western alliance is
> also
> considering asking the selfsame Yugoslav army to help NATO troops
> police the border
> between Kosovo and the neighboring former Yugoslavian republic of
> Macedonia.
> Once Yugoslavia had elected a president with whom the West could do
> business, prospects for winning NATO support for formal independence
> for Kosovo dimmed even further." (8)
> So, you may say white today, and black tomorrow if this useful for
> "business". Who will dare to come and speak to us about a humanitarian
> war, newt time?
>
> We were told that the intervention was necessary to stop a Serbian
> genocide
> and to establish a multi-ethnic Kosovo. But the German general Heinz
> Loquai
> has demonstrated that the so-called 'horse-shoe plan' document
> presented
> by the German minister Scharping was fake, that the genocide was a lie
> of the
> media and he just qualified the war as 'unjustified', and accused NATO
> to
> have caused two humanitarian catastrophes: a massive exodus of the
> Albanians
> and then another exodus of the Serbs. And the general Michael Rose,
> who
> commanded the UN forces in Bosnia, reproaches NATO "to have introduced
> a
> culture of violence". (9)
> Finally, in order to find some excuse for the current ethnic cleansing
> in
> Kosovo, the supporters of NATO and KLA have pretended that it was
> 'revenge acts
> for what the Serbs had done'. And now, in Macedonia, where nothing
> happened,
> under which pretext should one justify the aggression of the KLA? It
> is
> time to acknowledge the only possible explanation: the KLA aims to
> establish
> an ethnically clean state and can only realise this program by the
> escalation of hatred and by terrorism.
>
> 4. Does Washington play a double game?
>
> The United States make as if they were indignant at the current
> violences
> of the KLA. But we must point out several things: 1. They didn't move
> a
> finger when the KLA went out from Kosovo to attack the region of
> Presevo
> in Central Serbia. Worse: the infiltration occurred from the US
> occupation
> zone in Kosovo. 2. Washington and the NATO pretend today "to try to
> stop the
> flux of weapons and fighters towards southern Serbia and
> Macedonia".(10)
> But anybody who goes to Kosovo can observe roadblocks and
> check-points of
> the KFOR every five kilometers. But the same KFOR is working with
> interprets
> and other collaborators coming from the KLA, which besides was
> transformed
> by KFOR into the very official 'Kosovo Protection Corps'. So, the ones
> who
> don't look for the weapons of the KLA will not find them.
> Moreover, the major Jim Marshall, spokesman of the US KFOR, declared
> on
> March, 6: "We have identified between 75 and 150 rebels in Tanusevci
> (Macedonia), we saw them enter and go out from Kosovo, and get rid of
> their equipments and weapons before to cross the border." A little
> stupid
> question: what did prevent you to arrest them? 45,000 NATO soldiers
> are
> occupying Kosovo and can not arrest 150 terrorists ? Can not or
> don't want to? On March, 11, in the British newspaper Observer,
> several
> European high officers of KFOR and also several Macedonian officials
> accused
> explicitly the CIA to have encouraged the KLA to start its summer
> offensive
> in the South of Serbia in order to undermine the former Yugoslav
> president
> Slobodan Milosevic. Today, who could guarantee that these
> encouragements
> have stopped?
>
> 5. Will the KLA start a new war ?
>
> What will happen ? The current fights around Tanusevce could well be
> the prelude of more important clashes. For example, to take control of
> Tetovo, five kilometers away from the Kosovo border.
> In any case, one thing is clear: the KLA, which lost the elections
> last
> year, -because the large majority of the Albanians in Kosovo don't
> want to
> live in a permanent state of war - can only regain ground by using
> violence.
> Including in Macedonia where it pretends to defend the rights of the
> Albanian minority, but one often forgets to remind that, for years,
> every
> government of this country has been made of a coalition with Albanian
> parties.
> To take power, and thus increase the range of its maffia - like
> traffics,
> necessitates war.
> The tactics of the KLA is thus clear: to cause an escalation by
> provoking the Macedonian and the Yugoslavian armies. Hoping that the
> later
> will attack Albanian civilians as was done by some Serbian forces
> during
> the first days of the NATO bombings. That will allow to reach two
> goals: 1. To internationalise the conflict (we will come back to it
> later).
> 2. To enrol new recruits in an Albanian youth which has been fanatised
> by
> nationalism. In spite of the development of many little traffics more
> or
> less legal, the Albanian community of Macedonia has an unemployment
> rate of
> 60%; it is a potential where to recruit.
> To get this escalation, the KLA will probably use again a method which
> has already been put in practice. As a French observer of the OSCE
> explained it in Kosovo in 1998: "Inside the OSCE, everybody knew that
> NATO, in particular the US, didn't want our mission (of pacification)
> to
> succeed. The massacres have been encouraged to justify a military
> intervention. One day we got a message. We were told that Albanian
> fighters had been trained by American instructors. They were explained
> that it was more strategic to kill Serbian policemen to provoke
> important
> retaliations against the Albanian community." (11)
> As in Bosnia and in Kosovo there can be some time before that this
> tactics ends up in more important clashes. An important step would be
> done by provoking the equivalent of the 'Racak massacre'. In January
> 99,
> in this village of Kosovo that it had fortified, the KLA had provoked,
> and lost, a fight between the two armies. But it made believe that the
> victims were civilians coldly massacred by the Yugoslav army. With the
> help
> of the CIA, one made believe this media-lie in the international media
> and
> this allow to condition the Western public opinion to make it accept a
> war
> decided for a long time by the US. Each war of today is preceded by
> such
> a big media-lie, with shocking pictures.
>
> 6. What are the US really looking for?
>
> But to do again the 'Racak trick' would necessitate a complicity of
> the
> US to lead the Western media. If this would happen, that would
> certainly be
> the sign that the US superpower would be preparing a new intervention.
> One can oppose two objections to this hypothesis: First the US are
> qualifying today the KLA as 'extremist forces' and condemn their
> actions, at
> least in words. Answer: at the beginning of 98 also, they qualified
> the
> KLA as 'terrorists', as we have seen, but that didn't prevent them to
> support unconditionally the KLA a few months later. If there is one
> principle to remember
> in the action of the US for ten years, it is that there are no
> principles!
> One can also ask why would the US intervene although they seem to
> control
> the region and have installed there their military bases ? Of course
> one
> doesn't know yet all the aspects of their current tactics. It may be
> that
> behind the scene they push the KLA to create again some tension in
> order to
> help the US troops to occupy the whole region. As soon as the first
> incidents in the Presevo valley occurred, Washington had generously
> proposed to station US troops in Serbia proper. One must also remind
> that during the so-called
> 'negotiations' in Rambouillet before the war, Madeleine Albright had
> required that NATO will be allowed to occupy militarily the whole
> Yugoslavia.
> It may also be that new Bush administration has not yet decided which
> is
> the best tactic to protect the US interests in the Balkans, that it
> prefers
> to play for some time with both sides and that the tactic of the KLA
> was
> precisely to force it to take a decision or to act quicker.
> In both cases, one thing is sure: the US are not there to defend peace
> or
> protect any people of the Balkans. They are there to reign. And to
> reign
> you have to divide, as we know, and to divide the best solution is a
> war, or
> at least a so-called 'low intensity' war, a situation of 'neither war
> nor
> peace' with irregular clashes. Isn't it the best way to justify the
> installation of US military bases in the Balkans ?
> Of course, the candidate George Bush had said that he wanted to move
> the
> US troops out of Kosovo. But the president George Bush rapidly forgot
> these
> electoral promises. Lets remind that in 1995 the candidate Bill
> Clinton
> had promised that the US troops would have left Bosnia by Christmas.
> Immediately afterwards, the commander of the UN troops in Bosnia, the
> general MacKenzie, answered to a parliamentary commission: "If I were
> you,
> I'd start training your grandchildren as Bosnia peacekeepers." (12)
> Wether it wants to force Bush to intervene or acts in collaboration
> with him,
> the goal of the KLA is in any case to internationalise again the
> conflict,
> as did the Muslims of Izetbegovic in Bosnia from 1992 and the KLA
> itself in
> Kosovo in 1998.
> By attacking almost at the same time Macedonia and the South of
> Serbia,
> by denouncing in racist terms any Slav presence on their territories,
> the leaders of the KLA aim at provoking a reaction of Macedonia and
> Yugoslavia, but also of Greece, close to the Serbs. And, as an
> indirect
> result, a retaliation of their own allies: Albania and Turkey. That is
> an
> internationalisation of the conflict which would force Washington to
> choose
> between its allies and, as the KLA hopes, to definitely choose the
> Albanian side.
>
> 7. Will Washington still be able to play on both sides?
>
> To understand the situation of the US, it is important to understand
> that
> they systematically play on several sides at the same time. To support
> and
> to manipulate discretely two adversaries - and even train them
> militarily -
> does not embarrass them at all. For example, we can read in the
> British Daily
> Telegraph of March 3: "The private company of security which is the
> most
> appreciated by the US government has trained both sides of the last
> ethnic
> conflict in the Balkans. Only two years ago the Albanian rebels of
> Kosovo
> were trained by the society 'Military Professional Resources' based in
> Virginia... One of the recent task of this society was the training of
> the
> Macedonian army which is now shooting on the Albanian guerrilla."
> One should not underestimate the role in the US military system of the
> private companies and militia, led by former high officers. Already in
> Bosnia, they had trained and led the Muslim militia of the president
> Izetbegovic before that the US could openly intervene. And in Croatia
> they
> helped the president Tudjman to realise the bloody ethnic cleansing of
> the Serbian Krajina in august 95 (13). History repeats itself.
> Having played in several sides, the US can be for a moment in a
> difficult
> situation. From one side, they continue to use the KLA to get more
> concessions from Serbia: the complete privatisation and the
> elimination of
> the main opposition party, the SPS (by sending its president Milosevic
> to the Court of the Hague). But on the other hand, if they let the KLA
> going too far, they will have troubles with precious allies: 1. The
> Macedonian government 2. Greece (also threatened by the demands of the
> KLA) 3. The Yugoslav president Kostunica.
> The Macedonian government has not much autonomy and one says that
> Washington could impose it what it wants, including a federal state,
> prelude to a splitting. Moreover, the Macedonian leaders are very
> weakened by various scandals, which have revealed their links
> with the US. The left opposition claims to be more independent, but
> its
> main candidate was put aside by terror during the last elections.
> Macedonia,
> a too weak and unstable ally for Washington ?
> On the other hand, the Greek leaders are important pawns in the NATO
> strategy of Washington. But the Greek people is strongly against NATO,
> the
> influence of the communist party is important and very recently one
> third
> of the Greek soldiers have required and obtained to be moved out from
> Kosovo to escape the dangers of depleted uranium.
> Finally by playing too openly with the card of the KLA, the US would
> strongly endangered the president Kostunica, who was elected with an
> ambiguous profile - anti-NATO and pro-West - and who can not present
> to
> his opinion any positive result about Kosovo, to the contrary.
> To allow him to make come again some Yugoslav troops to watch the
> border is maybe a small concession to give some more credit to
> Kostunica and to somehow balance the two 'friends' of the US. But the
> reason can also be simply to avoid that US soldiers would be in first
> line
> and risk to come back to the US in body-bags, which is always
> embarrassing
> for the US opinion. And, in a more machiavellian way, that would start
> again clashes between Serbs and Albanians.
> What if Washington drops the KLA and reverses its alliance? Then it
> could be that its German 'ally' -but also rival- supports again
> secretly
> the KLA as it did at the beginning 98 (14). Which also explains that
> the
> KLA has interest to make even more provocations. The rivalry between
> Western great powers is thus another factor which increases the risks
> of
> war. Many European politicians had already accused the US to be guilty
> of
> having uselessly prolonged the war in Bosnia in order to eliminate
> their
> German competitor which had got a too good position. (15)
> Reverse the alliance? One has already seen everything in this respect
> from
> the US, for example between Iran, Iraq and Syria. But their goal is to
> establish in the Balkans a 'plane-carrier' state, like Israel in the
> Middle-East. For this, an obvious choice is still an Albanian state
> which
> would owe everything to Washington. However, the European powers
> refuse
> a change of the borders in the Balkans. This would cause new wars and
> destabilise the projects of 'corridors' described above.
> One thing is sure: the intervention of NATO for some hidden interests
> didn't
> bring and will not bring peace.
>
> 8. Do they really ask themselves if they have created a monster?
>
> It is again in The Guardian that one could read, on March 12, a
> surprising question: 'Did we create a monster ?'. Their special
> correspondent
> in Pristina reports: "The West is stunned. Balkan nightmares were
> supposed
> to have ended with the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. But now
> Albanian nationalist militants are stirring ethnic rivalries in a
> quest
> for a greater Kosovo. The liberated victims have become the villains.
> In Washington and London, and in the offices of NATO and UN in
> Pristina, a
> question is dominating: did we create a monster ?" The correspondent
> of the
> Guardian led a quite vast investigation with the staff of UN and KFOR
> and
> concludes: "The failure of KFOR to disarm the KLA, protect the Serb
> minority and build a multi-ethnic society has created a climate in
> which extremists flourish. For almost a year it
> ignored intellectuals who urged a crackdown on KLA members who seized
> assets and set up criminal networks. "Now it's too late, the moderates
> won the election, but those who smuggle and run the rackets have the
> real power," one officer serving there
> admits."
> Disastrous result, and one understands that the former governor of
> Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, had quickly left the ship before that his
> self-satisfied TV statements have been refuted.
> Because what The Guardian reports is true. I was myself in Kosovo last
> December to make there a documentary movie "The damned of Kosovo"
> (which will
> be ready next May). I discovered there a hell for the Serbs and all
> non - Albanian minorities. Most of them have been expelled from
> Kosovo:
> ethnic cleansing. The ones who have stayed live in terror. To speak
> its own
> language in public constitutes a mortal danger. Also to go on highways
> in non-Serbian zones. But the terror strikes also a number of
> Albanians.
> KLA maffiosi kill Albanians also. To take houses, companies or women.
> And
> many of the Albanian with who I was talking, predicted a civil war
> - between Albanians - in two or three years time.
> Quickly The Guardian mentions the theory of 'the mistake': The West
> would 'have misunderstood the danger of Albanian nationalism'. Of
> which
> 'West' are we talking here? If it is the public, it is indeed true
> that
> it didn't understand because one hided to it carefully the truth. When
> some analysts explained that the program of the KLA was the ethnic
> cleansing,
> they were almost excluded of the media or even considered as evils.
> But if one speaks about the leaders of this 'West' - the White House,
> Tony Blair, Solana and Robertson, the CIA - they knew of course for a
> long
> time because their own reports considered the KLA as 'terrorists'.
> In Kosovo, we have also seen that one has to distinguish between a
> number
> of honest Western aid workers and militaries, and their high-level
> officials.
> The former went to Kosovo with prejudices but also with good will. The
> later
> have been sent to Kosovo to hide this truth, to hide the secret goals
> of the
> US and their allies and to lie.
> It is certainly in the first category that one must put Eric Torch, a
> UN aid worker cited by The Guardian: "Albanians
> trace their lineage to the Illyrans who controlled the territory in
> the
> 11th century BC. Underground schools during Milosevic's rule
> inculcated ethnic
> hatred into generations."
> Yes, you have read correctly: 'during Milosevic's
> rule'. This confirms what have said some unconventional analysts:
> these
> parallel Albanian schools, organized by the party of Rugova and
> financed
> by the US taught racist anti-Serbian conceptions. It was wrong to say
> that
> the responsibility of the conflict was entirely on the side of the
> Serbs.
> Pushed by the US, the Albanian leaders of Kosovo refused to negotiate
> seriously, they wanted only independence and taught the hatred to
> achieve it.
>
> 9. Which role will play the rivalry US -EU?
>
> One can not understand the attitude of the US in these events without
> replacing it in the context of their world strategy. One of the
> key-men
> of the new Bush administration is called Wolfowitz. In our book
> Liar's Poker we made comments about his shock-report of March 92:
> "The status of unique super-power of the US must be preserved by a
> constructive behaviour and a sufficient military force to dissuade any
> nation or group of nations to challenge the supremacy of the US. We
> must
> act in order to prevent the appearance of a security system
> exclusively
> European which could destabilise NATO" (16).
> The US military budget began to blow up under Clinton and this will
> continue under Bush. Three potential rivals at more or less long term
> are
> today the potential targets of this dangerous strategy: the European
> Union,
> Russia, China. The embassy of the later was bombed as a warning. It is
> considered by the CIA as risking to overtake around 2015-2030 the
> power of
> the US. Concerning Russia, the new US State secretary, Colin Powell,
> declared
> that the objections of Moscow would not prevent the expansion of NATO
> to
> the East or the militarisation of space by the so-called
> 'anti-missiles
> shield' (NMD). His colleague Condoleezza Rice declared that she
> sincerely
> "believes that Russia is a threat for the West" (17). And the Defence
> secretary
> Rumsfeld attacked Russia for "its 'active proliferation of missiles'
> to
> countries like Iran, Korea or India". (18)
> Concerning Europe, Rumsfeld warned against any autonomous European
> intervention force which would perturb the transatlantic relation
> during
> the conference of Munich about global safety, beginning of February.
> Answer
> of the German minister Joskha Fisher: the new Bush administration
> wants to
> restart a new arms race. His colleague Scharping expressed sympathy
> for
> the Russian views about NMD. Germany has, like France, condemned the
> US bombings against Iraq.
> Moreover, the ambition of the US to dictate their will to the whole
> world
> is currently braked by several points of resistance that they don't
> succeed to eliminate. Iraq still resists, as well as the Palestinians.
> The US intervention in Colombia could transform itself into a new
> Vietnam.
> The communist guerrilla in Nepal worries the American experts. Some of
> them
> think that it is time to find a solution in the Balkans and to focus
> on other
> operations.
> All this on a background of growing commercial rivalries and crisis
> which
> could only worsen the tension USA-Europe. The game that these powers
> are
> playing in the Balkans for ten years, each of them trying to get the
> biggest part of the cake, this game will continue to cause damages to
> the
> peoples of the region. When the elephants fight each other, it is the
> grass
> which is smashed.
> And after all the gifts that the US have given to reward the terrorism
> of
> the KLA, one can expect that this example will be contagious for some
> fractions of the Albanian community in Macedonia and Montenegro or for
> other
> secessionist movements in the world. One will use provocations and
> terrorism to try to present oneself as 'victims'.
> The mistrust between US and Europe about Kosovo increased when the
> candidate Bush threatened to move out the US troops from the Balkans,
> letting
> the Europeans alone in what one is forced to call a mess. Since then,
> many European officials criticize -privately- the support of the US to
> the
> terrorists of KLA. An expert of the French Institute of International
> Relations (IFRI) has just declared: "The Dayton process is dead. The
> whole
> system needs to be renegotiated. But no-one wants to open the
> Pandora's
> box by calling it into question, risking poisoning the
> situation on the ground. If for example, the Kosovo Albanians were
> appeased
> with a state of their own, it would trigger a domino
> effect that would see Serbia's junior partner in the
> rump Yugoslavia, Montenegro, as well as Bosnian Serbs
> and Bosnian Croats all renewing their own independence claims.
> For some time it appeared the Americans were prepared
> to look at changing borders. I think that cannot
> happen now, and if they did try it they would be opposed by Europe."
> (19))
>
> What will be the outcome? In fact, Bush has four options: 1. to redraw
> his
> troops. That would have strongly embarrassed the Europeans. It is now
> not
> possible anymore, especially with the depleted uranium scandal. 2. to
> reverse
> the alliance and to support the Serbia of Kostunica. But the US troops
> could become the targets of the KLA. And one is not sure that Serbia
> will be a reliable partner for the long term. The spirit of popular
> resistance is still alive there. 3. to support both sides by using a
> strategy of tension. 4. to maintain the support to the KLA to create
> an
> Albanian 'Israel-like' state while hiding its game as long as
> possible.
> No one of the options is moral, we have seen that this criteria is
> never
> relevant. But to realize their strategic long-term goals, the US can
> well
> resort to changing and contradictory tactics.
> For now a combination of the options 3 and 4 seems the most likely to
> us. But
> maybe the US have not decided yet and they are waiting to see the most
> favourable according to the reactions of their 'friends' ?
> In any case, the tactics being changing, some docile media would have
> some
> trouble to explain to the peoples that the good guys are not good
> anymore and
> that the bad guys are on the other side. Let's hope that these
> troubles will
> cause a deep reflexion. If one doesn't understand the economic
> interests at
> stake, and first, the ones of the multinationals looking for new
> markets,
> working forces and raw materials, it is impossible to understand all
> these
> wars.
>
> 10. Is Kostunica in a trap ?
>
> The president Kostunica has been elected by defending an ambiguous
> position:
> on one hand, he denounces the war of NATO, the occupation of Kosovo
> and
> the interference of the US; on the other hand, he promises the
> reconciliation with this very same West and an economic improvement
> thanks
> to Western aid.
> Till now the least one can say is that he wasn't rewarded concerning
> Kosovo.
> On March 6, he declared: "The representatives of the international
> community
> in Kosovo are facing failure, because they did not provide stability
> and peace,
> and the crisis spilled over into Macedonia. Kfor is dealing with its
> own security,
> and not with the security of those because of whom it is here."(20)
> Kostunica also accused KFOR of "stimulating instead of curbing the
> aspirations of a Greater Albania. KFOR is abandoning protection of the
> border and is
> inviting our army to be in the crossfire" (21) He also expressed hope
> that
> the policy of the new U.S. administration would be marked by "a high
> level of
> non-interference in the problems of other states". (22)
> The paradox is that two days after having warned so clearly against
> NATO and the interference of the US , the same Kostunica added that
> "he did not rule out Yugoslavia becoming a formal alliance partner one
> day."(23) A NATO which is however the most obvious tool of the
> interference spirit of the US ! In the same declaration, the Yugoslav
> president declared himself disappointed: "When I came to office, I did
> not
> expect the situation in the country to be quite so difficult; it is
> discouraging," citing security and constitutional problems as well as
> 40
> percent unemployment and 800,000 refugees. Surprising declaration as
> the
> 800,000 refugees (expelled from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) are living
> in Serbia for years. Concerning the unemployed, did he lead his
> electoral
> campaign by ignoring that the Western embargo and the state of the
> economy had such consequences ? And by not reading the program of the
> economists of his own electoral coalition which foresaw privatisations
> and
> massive dismissals ?
>
> How to interpret these contradictory statements ? In fact, as
> expected,
> the material situation of the Serbian population has still worsened
> with the
> Djindjic government. If the salaries of the university professors have
> been
> doubled, the ones of the workers have only increased by 25% to 50%,
> and
> it is completely insufficient to face the huge increases of the
> prices.
> The cubic meter of gas has gone from three up to twelve dinars, the
> kilo of
> sausages from 150 up to 300 dinars, the electricity bill of a
> household
> has increased from 150 or 200 dinars a month to 500 dinars! The
> electricity
> company of Belgrade indicates that 130,000 households of the city have
> a very important debt: more than 30,000 dinars! And the price of
> petrol also
> increases, all the more that the new government took control of all
> the
> oil sector in order to eliminate the black market of petrol (cheaper).
> As expected, the honeymoon didn't last. If the president Kostunica is
> not
> considered as personally responsible for all this, the rate of
> discontent
> towards the new government of Zoran Djindjic on the other hand has
> already gone up to 60%: "He doesn't do anything for the people. Even
> during
> the war, we had always had electricity, but with the 'great
> democracy', the
> cuts last for four hours during the day, three hours at night" is it
> told
> everywhere. And many judge that elections are unavoidable in 12 or 18
> months
> time. The heterogeneous coalition of 18 parties should split quite
> soon.
> It is why one must dismiss Milosevic and eliminate the risk of a come
> back of the socialist party, even if this party has not yet gone up in
> the polls.
>
> Which evolution is to foresee inside Yugoslavia? The professors that
> are
> not from the universities are on a prolonged strike. Many strikes
> occur also in the industry, only broken by threats of collective
> dismissals.
> This didn't prevent the new left trade-union 'Solidarity' to get at
> the
> car factory Zastava an additional increase of salary of 25%. On the
> other
> hand, the minority trade-union of government tendency had refused to
> join the strike. 'Solidarity' has announced the publication of a
> monthly
> newspaper and the next months should see it increasing its influence.
> Did Kostunica fall in a trap of the West? Was he expecting to get more
> support in the question of Kosovo and for the economy? Till now he
> just
> got alms and the US make the other credits depend on the extradition
> of
> Milosevic. What Kostunica can not do otherwise he would contradict
> himself
> and commit a political suicide. Thus, the US finance a new campaign of
> OTPOR
> to criminalize Milosevic. The US, which, for fifty years, have
> supported,
> financed and armed all the far-right and military dictatorships in the
> world, these US which have protected the crimes of Pinochet, Mobutu,
> Franco, Salazar, the Greek colonels and the Turkish fascist generals,
> these
> US pretend to judge just one former head of state, precisely one who
> has
> resisted to them ? The US deserve the Oscar of hypocrisy.
>
> 11. Perspectives.
>
> In a world marked by a looming economic crisis, by an increase of the
> wars and a frightening increase of the military budgets, it is
> important to
> fully draw the lessons of Kosovo and of the current situation.
> 1. There are no 'humanitarian' wars, only economic and strategic wars.
> 2. The US and NATO are not searching to solve the problems but to
> dominate the world. Thus they create or excite the problems when it is
> useful
> for them 3. The military intervention against Yugoslavia and in favour
> of
> the KLA has worsened everything. 4. It is not 'by mistake' that
> Washington
> supported the KLA, but consciously.
> It is urgent to reinforce or to recreate a powerful peace movement on
> a
> grass-root level. The only way to get there is to work with patience
> in
> establishing the dialog between the peoples, who are all victims of
> this
> strategy of 'dividing to conquer'.
> And for this, to debate of the results of this war and of the real
> strategies of the great powers is the fundamental condition. The
> struggle for
> peace begins with a lucid analysis.
>
> 12th of March 2001
>
> Notes
>
> (1) Michel Collon, Monopoly - L'Otan à la Conquête du monde, EPO,
> march 2000,
> p. 96. (English edition prepared)
> (2) The Guardian, February 15, 2001.
> (3) Idem.
> (4) Idem.
> (5) AFP-Skopje, March 6, 2001.
> (6) Washington Post, April 28, 1999.
> (7) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001.
> (8) Time, 8 mars 2001
> (9) Both cited in Kan Anders-Vredeskoerier (Holland), march 2001.
> (10) Declaration of Robertson (NATO), AP, March 6.
> (11) L'Humanité, November 18, 1999
> (12) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001
> (13) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 191. (Soon published
> in English version)
> (14) See Monopoly, pp. 70-71.
> (15) The European mediator in Bosnia, David Owen, cited in Michel
> Collon,
> Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 182.
> (16) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, p. 116.
> (17) Le Figaro, February 10, 2001.
> (18) PBS, February 14, 2001.
> (19) AFP - Paris, March 8, 2001.
> (20) BBC, March 6.
> (21) Reuters - Skopje, March 8, 2001.
> (22) BBC, March 6.
> (23) Reuters - London, March 8, 2001
>
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti
dell'ex Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'",
oggi "Comitato Promotore dell'Assemblea Antimperialista":
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita':
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.domeus.it/ad1210280/www.domeus.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe